Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

KUBLER v. YEAGER (04/16/59)

April 16, 1959

KUBLER
v.
YEAGER, APPELLANT.



Appeal, No. 30, Feb. T., 1959, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, Oct. T., 1958, No. 2434, in case of George E. Kubler v. Elmer Yeager. Order affirmed.

COUNSEL

E.C. Marianelli, for appellant.

Thomas C. Moore, for appellee.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ.

Author: Ervin

[ 189 Pa. Super. Page 340]

OPINION BY ERVIN, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the court below affirming a decision of the Workmen's Compensation Board wherein the claimant was awarded compensation for the loss of an eye under ยง 306(c) of the Workmen's Compensation Law.*fn1

The board found the following fact: "TENTH: That prior to the accident of September 8, 1953, the claimant suffered an injury to his left eye, but he was able

[ 189 Pa. Super. Page 341]

    to see light and large objects with his left eye at the time of the accident of September 8, 1953, so that his sight was better with both eyes than it was using the right eye alone, and therefore, his left eye was not lost for all practical purposes." The board then made the following conclusions of law: "FIRST: The claimant suffered the loss of his left eye as a result of the accident of September 8, 1953, and consequently was permanently disabled.

"SECOND: We conclude that the defendant failed to prove by competent evidence that the claimant had suffered the permanent loss of the use of his left eye prior to the accident of September 8, 1953.

"THIRD: The claimant is entitled to compensation for disability resulting from the loss of his left eye under Section 306(c) of the Workmen's Compensation Act."

The sole question on this appeal is whether the above mentioned findings by the board are supported by competent and substantial evidence. We repeat what was so well said by Judge WRIGHT in Oliver v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 186 Pa. Superior Ct. 604, 606, 607, 142 A.2d 486: "It is well settled that (1) the Workmen's Compensation Law is a remedial statute and is to receive a liberal construction; (2) findings of fact by the compensation authorities, if supported by the evidence, are binding upon the courts; and (3) on appeal from an award the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the claimant: Spry v. Polt, 186 Pa. Superior Ct. 326, 142 A.2d 484. Judicial review in the instant case must be confined ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.